In response to:

The Supreme Oxymorons

Drik Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 10:30 AM
They slipped us a fast one. Not constitutional to regulate inactivity. But somehow, it IS constitutional now to tax it. Which is a just a twisted label for regulating it. Puts one extra step in the process between us and incarcerating us for not doing things that they decide we have to do as part of of our socialist responsibility, with the soon to come socialist responsibility taxes.
John634 Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 12:04 PM
Actually, no. Roberts did put one thing over on the Left and that was to limit ANY possibility of any further use of the Commerce Clause in the matter.
DMZuniga Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 3:38 PM
No; more than that, Roberts is setting the stage to revisit the abuse of the Commerce Clause in all manner of things beyond healthcare. Chief Justice Roberts hit it over the fence, as you'll see soon enough.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Obamacare has achieved its first milestone: The repudiation of logic, the Orwellian assertion that A both is and is not A.

The massive healthcare package, officially titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires that individuals buy medical insurance. The law imposes a fine on those who fail to purchase the government-approved and regulated insurance.

The legislation refers to this financial penalty 18 times. It never once refers to it as a tax. (Note: you can find